Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

But rebuilding and recovery efforts related to the Thomas Fire will rise to the top of the list as city staff members make decisions about where to focus their time and energy in the year ahead.

That came out of a special workshop Monday that focused on the costs of the fire and the city’s annual goal-setting session, which “kicks off our fiscal year budget process,” interim City Manager Dan Paranick said.

This year, that’s being done amid the destructive and expensive fire, which Paranick said was “more than a huge curveball that was thrown at us.”

The fire will cost the city more than $60 million, officials estimate. State and federal reimbursements should cover most of that, but the city will still be on the hook for $5 million, said city Finance and Technology Director Gilbert Garcia.

Those costs could easily climb.

The estimate doesn’t include lost sales, property and transient occupancy taxes charged on lodging establishments and short-term vacation rentals; and lost revenue from parking meters. The tourism-driven economy took a substantial hit when the largest fire officially recorded in modern California history traveled through town. Garcia said those costs would be better known in the next two to three months.

Whatever the final cost ends up being, they will be significant, they were not budgeted for and the risk remains high for mud and debris flows that lead to another costly emergency.

The Ventura City Council praised city staff members for their hard work during and since the fire. Council member Christy Weir said it was a testament to their work and the city’s outside consultants that Ventura’s share remained so low, considering the fire’s high costs.

The council also discussed other areas members hope to see the staff focus on over the next year.

The staff plans to update the city’s economic development plan, set to expire soon, and develop an action plan to get concrete initiatives off the ground.

Council members agreed that getting 505 Poli St. leased was important. The city-owned property, adjacent to City Hall, hosts nonprofits and a business incubator for startups. But it is significantly underutilized, and the council has been discussing over the past few years how to make better use of it.

Several council members also wanted to see greater emphasis on cleanliness.

“Blight and general shabbiness of the city is a problem, and we haven’t been able to tackle it,” Weir said.

Weir suggested hiring a code enforcement official specifically charged with addressing lower-priority code complaints such as rusted news racks or old signs.

Council member Cheryl Heitmann wanted to see a greater emphasis on permanent, supportive housing and wanted to revisit the city’s inclusionary housing policies. Changes in state law allow a city to require affordable housing as part of for-rent residential developments, and a recent court case upheld a San Jose policy requiring affordable units to be part of for-sale projects, a longstanding Ventura policy.

Council member Mike Tracy wanted to keep the issue of what to do with the city’s two golf courses as part of the conversation. He said if there are too many courses in the area, one could be repurposed for youth fields or some other productive use.

Other council members hoped to see some movement on getting a year-round homeless shelter open.

Council member Erik Nasarenko wanted the city to function as “proactive real estate brokers to find that lot and then to really aggressively court a nonprofit to run it. It’s fatiguing to every year go through the winter warming shelter drama.”

Ventura recently changed its zoning to allow a year-round winter warming shelter in some areas. Policymakers have made it clear that the city has no plans to own or operate it, but it will help pay to run it, and the city staff has been working to help identify a site.

The city will also continue to closely track spending, including for the fastest-growing ongoing cost: pensions.

Nasarenko asked for an update on how much the city had saved by paying its unfunded accrued liability costs at the start of the year, rather than in payments, and other things the city could do reduce its pension costs. The city estimated it would save $390,000 in interest in 2017-18 by paying upfront the unfunded liability, which is money owed for work already done.

The city paid $13.8 million in retirement costs for past and current employees in fiscal year 2014-15. That will grow to roughly $19.7 million in fiscal year 2018-19, according to recent actuarial reports, a growth of 43 percent.

As of June 30, 2016, the most recent year available, the city had $210 million in unfunded liabilities, up from $147 million two years earlier. For miscellaneous employees, that meant the city could pay around 75 cents of every dollar owed; for public safety employees, it was 59 cents.